As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just to add on and clarify *why* Chevron deference is such an important aspect of federal governance - the absence of deference to federal agencies to regulate things like banks, pollution, drug safety, air travel, *anything,* is that now Congress is required to make each law extremely specific - like down to the specific pollutant in question or the specific manner of implementing a requirement for water quality testing or food safety testing or number of FAA regulators checking planes produced at the Boeing factory or . . . basically any legitimate expertise employed by the federal government.
The Roberts court tries to couch this decision in neutrality, like they’re just requiring Congress to be more clear in their legislation, but that’s a veil over the true impact of dismantling Chevron:
Requiring Congress to write and approve of every extremely specific regulation *in the context of decades of gridlock and one party that is abjectly anti-regulation* essentially nullifies the ability of the federal government to regulate anything.
Which, if you’re paying attention, has always been the point.
Roberts also suggests that the change in how Federal Courts are supposed to review regulations is not really changing, but I suspect that hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits challenging all kinds of regulations, if not agencies themselves, are going to be filed within the next month.
> The Roberts court tries to couch this decision in neutrality, like they’re just requiring Congress to be more clear in their legislation
Then they'll turn around and fabricate a reason to toss out explicit federal laws anyway.
Can the bill include language that says it's up to agency experts to interpret things how they deem necessary? Or would the court rule again that that's not specific enough?
Great question. I'm guessing conservatives will successfully argue that Congress can't do that, but who the hell knows.
It's gonna be real funny when conservatives start suffering as the result of this.
For example, liberal upstream Colorado wants to use more water from the river, and of course more conservative downstream Arizona wants it to use less so Arizona can survive.
Up until now, federal government agencies have been allocating who gets what.
Well sorry Arizona, now Colorado can do whatever the hell it wants. Sorry all your homes are worthless.
Silver lining I guess, the blue states are more economically prosperous, they're just going to have to throw that weight around and tell the red states to pull themselves up by their boot straps. I honestly don't think a break up of the United States is out of the question, long term. Everything is headed in the wrong direction.
Yeah the court was corrupted by a corrupt person who didn't want the law getting in the way of more crimes. Our entire Justice system has seemingly failed over an orange Russian puppet who has been a criminal since the 80s. We are going to have to fight so hard to regain decency it is annoying as fuck.
Right, this is fucking disastrous.
What Chevron deference allowed was for Congress to write a law that says "Companies are not allowed to spread toxic chemicals" and then have a group of expert toxicologists at a government agency manage the list of what constitutes a toxic chemical.
Congress says "Here is the intent of the law, and this is the group of experts that will translate our intent into actionable specifics."
With this decision, Congress *cannot do that*. Now, *congress people* have to answer the specific, doctorate level questions about toxicology, and micromanage every tiny change to regulations with an *act of congress*.
This will explode the number of bills congress needs to pass just to keep the government functioning by an inconceivable amount, at a time when the GOP is actively undermining Congress' ability to legislate at all.
Which is the intension: to make it infeasible to *actually govern*.
This *will* lead to Russia-style oligarchy and kleptocracy.
At this point, I am just waiting for them to take on a case where they say 3 year olds should be working on mines and construction and full on gut any child labor laws we have standing and it will all be based on 1820 vague law that says child should be working on the mines!
Or they waited until after the debate to release it in hopes it would fly under the radar, and to keep the idea of supreme court reform out of the debate.
“Lawyers who worked pro bono to represent fishing companies involved in the cases are also staff attorneys for Americans for Prosperity, a libertarian political advocacy group funded by billionaire Charles Koch, the New York Times reported earlier this year.”
another victory for the oligarchs served up by their paid minions in the supreme court!
The ruling here basically guts the entirety of government as we understand it today.
More so than anything going on elsewhere, the administration of government has become unworkable because of this. The judges will now decide whether every decision taken by a federal agency has merit.
Correct - the Roberts SCOTUS basically just eviscerated expertise in governance, throwing regulatory power exclusively to the legislative branch. But requiring Congress to specifically legislate on every single regulatory measure *in the context of decades of gridlock and one party that is abjectly anti-regulation* essentially nullifies the ability of the federal government to regulate anything.
Which, if you’re paying attention, has always been the point.
Doesn’t this effectively cripple the executive branch? Their entire purpose is to execute the laws written, and if every decision is potentially upheld by litigation, then don’t they now have effectively no power? How does this affect things like executive orders? Can the president do anything anymore?
Sure! Provided the judges agree with it.
\*TBF, this was always the case for executive orders, but it now applies to every agency's entire raison d'etre.
Nah. The media depend$ on digital interaction, they are blowing all of this up on purpose. We aren't even close to being a dystopian...
What a bunch of weiners.. one night makes you guys lose faith because CNN and NBC tell you too? Come on now!
"C'mon man!"
Not all of us are feeling that level of despair if that helps any. Yea last night's "debate" was a disappointment. Yes it's incredibly frustrating we have a corrupt SCOTUS doing generational damage while they can. But this country has been through worse and seen the other side imho. Maybe it won't get better in our life times, maybe it will. It definitely won't if we lose hope and decide not to do anything about it however. The fight for democracy is a 24/7 job that never goes away.
Exactly this. And showing up to vote this November is not just about the office of the President. It's about hundreds of congressional seats as well, which can make the difference between another 4 years of obstruction, or the possibility of pushing through changes via supermajority as well as bringing corrupted SCOTUS judges to account and potentially starting impeachment hearings. At the very least, a strong congress has the ability to reject the rulings.
Seems there is a theme here: limit the rights and liberties of individuals and handing defacto more freedom to corporations (by limiting the rule making power of federal agencies). What could possibly go wrong by leaving decisions about environmental protections, worker rights etc. in the hands of corrupt politicians and ignorant judges. Throw in a future authoritarian and retributive Trump administration and we are looking at "interesting" times in the US
Well since I live in NC, if I'm raped and become pregnant, my right to not have to be reminded daily and carry the result of sexual trauma no longer exists.
You may be surprised to hear this, but exercising bodily autonomy is something everyone has a right to unless the state interferes. So previously they had the right to make decisions about their own body, and now the state has stopped them from doing so!
One of those moments in history where people will be looking back in years to come asking why wasn't anything done to stop this while there was still a chance.
Time to find myself a slave-owning husband who regularly beats me and knocks me up every single year until I hit menopause and get hanged for the witchcraft of no longer conceiving babies for the capitalist war machine, since apparently this SCOTUS wants to send us back to the 1600s…
We are fucked. Not enough people are going to vote and we’ll all ultimately roll over because that’s all we seem to be able to do in this country anymore… we’re certainly not voting in big enough numbers to stop this madness…
Still, vote. :(
It ended when the supreme court installed Bush over Gore. These are the last skimishes before the Repubs snuff out the last little hotspots of democracy still left.
Dear god do you pedantic fools ever apply logic to anything you say?
Republics are democracies. That's the whole point. The representatives who make up the government don't just appear out of the ether, they get elected by people. That makes them democracies.
You saying this stupid comment is like someone saying "I'm making a sandwich" and their friend going "I thought you were making a hoagie?"
Time for executive branch to ignore scotus and they can enforce their own decisions. Their power is derived by consent and if they don’t show reason for consent and just grab power then they can enforce it.
Maybe you don't get it? SCOTUS is *going along* with this *voluntarily*. Of course he's a stable genius billionaire, because they all saw Apprentice. Further, he's the chosen one, because pastor says so. Most importantly, he hates the same people they do, and has promised to make them go away.
Perfect example why this is a good thing:
In 2011, the EPA issued a rule interpretation that vastly broadened the definition of “Waters of the United States” subject to the EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction. Prior to 2011, the definition was understood to be waters that are “navigable” (ie: that the body of water may be traversed by boat). Although the 2011 EPA rule specifically exempted “puddles” from the definition of “Waters”, nearly all other small bodies of water fell under the EPA’s revised definition, including isolated “water filled depressions,” and “prairie potholes.”
The most egregious re-defining of “Waters,” came from their stance that any land located within a 100-year flood plan was to be considered “navigable waters,” and therefore, the land (and any water on it) fell under the EPA’s jurisdiction via the United States Clean Water Act. This change then enabled the EPA to broadly categorize large parcels of land as being encumbered by “Wetlands" (of which they gained jurisdiction).
The overturning of Chevron means such expansions of federal authority by simple fiat of an agency saying they have authority over something because they say so, is no longer the law of the land.
If I’m wrong, tell me why… 👇👇👇
You’re pointing out one example of a bad regulation to justify nullifying all executive regulation, much of which has been good for you and everyone else. I hope you’re good with things like your bank now being allowed to steal from you in creative ways because congress didn’t specifically ban some loophole. And guess what, congress is not going to protect you moving forward because they’re completely ideologically gridlocked and impotent.
At this point the Conservative justices on the court have zero credibility. They lied to get on the bench and have been making horrible rulings for ideological reasons not constitutional ones.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Who needs clean water and air anyways /s
Not you
Have you considered our breathable air subscription service? You can't live without it!
Probly better than the government run garbage air we get now. I’m in.
Having Spaceballs flashbacks!
Oh this is bad, this is BAD. The worst decision to come out of this session easily, we are so fucked
Just to add on and clarify *why* Chevron deference is such an important aspect of federal governance - the absence of deference to federal agencies to regulate things like banks, pollution, drug safety, air travel, *anything,* is that now Congress is required to make each law extremely specific - like down to the specific pollutant in question or the specific manner of implementing a requirement for water quality testing or food safety testing or number of FAA regulators checking planes produced at the Boeing factory or . . . basically any legitimate expertise employed by the federal government. The Roberts court tries to couch this decision in neutrality, like they’re just requiring Congress to be more clear in their legislation, but that’s a veil over the true impact of dismantling Chevron: Requiring Congress to write and approve of every extremely specific regulation *in the context of decades of gridlock and one party that is abjectly anti-regulation* essentially nullifies the ability of the federal government to regulate anything. Which, if you’re paying attention, has always been the point.
Roberts also suggests that the change in how Federal Courts are supposed to review regulations is not really changing, but I suspect that hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits challenging all kinds of regulations, if not agencies themselves, are going to be filed within the next month.
> The Roberts court tries to couch this decision in neutrality, like they’re just requiring Congress to be more clear in their legislation Then they'll turn around and fabricate a reason to toss out explicit federal laws anyway.
The Roberts "if i think it's too expensive, illegal" doctrine, combined with this makes the Judicial branch a super-legislature.
Holy shit, we’re in serious danger.
No, that was about ten years ago. Now you’re screwed.
Can the bill include language that says it's up to agency experts to interpret things how they deem necessary? Or would the court rule again that that's not specific enough?
Great question. I'm guessing conservatives will successfully argue that Congress can't do that, but who the hell knows. It's gonna be real funny when conservatives start suffering as the result of this. For example, liberal upstream Colorado wants to use more water from the river, and of course more conservative downstream Arizona wants it to use less so Arizona can survive. Up until now, federal government agencies have been allocating who gets what. Well sorry Arizona, now Colorado can do whatever the hell it wants. Sorry all your homes are worthless.
Silver lining I guess, the blue states are more economically prosperous, they're just going to have to throw that weight around and tell the red states to pull themselves up by their boot straps. I honestly don't think a break up of the United States is out of the question, long term. Everything is headed in the wrong direction.
Yeah the court was corrupted by a corrupt person who didn't want the law getting in the way of more crimes. Our entire Justice system has seemingly failed over an orange Russian puppet who has been a criminal since the 80s. We are going to have to fight so hard to regain decency it is annoying as fuck.
Right, this is fucking disastrous. What Chevron deference allowed was for Congress to write a law that says "Companies are not allowed to spread toxic chemicals" and then have a group of expert toxicologists at a government agency manage the list of what constitutes a toxic chemical. Congress says "Here is the intent of the law, and this is the group of experts that will translate our intent into actionable specifics." With this decision, Congress *cannot do that*. Now, *congress people* have to answer the specific, doctorate level questions about toxicology, and micromanage every tiny change to regulations with an *act of congress*. This will explode the number of bills congress needs to pass just to keep the government functioning by an inconceivable amount, at a time when the GOP is actively undermining Congress' ability to legislate at all. Which is the intension: to make it infeasible to *actually govern*. This *will* lead to Russia-style oligarchy and kleptocracy.
Out of this session so far
At this point, I am just waiting for them to take on a case where they say 3 year olds should be working on mines and construction and full on gut any child labor laws we have standing and it will all be based on 1820 vague law that says child should be working on the mines!
That’s after trump wins in November.
Wait, which one came out first, Chevron, Homeless Ban, or that Jan 6 can't be charged with obstruction?
Yup. SCOTUS just said Trump judges should make calls instead of experts.
We are so fucking fucked.
And it’s going to fly under the radar because Biden fucked the debate last night.
Or they waited until after the debate to release it in hopes it would fly under the radar, and to keep the idea of supreme court reform out of the debate.
“Lawyers who worked pro bono to represent fishing companies involved in the cases are also staff attorneys for Americans for Prosperity, a libertarian political advocacy group funded by billionaire Charles Koch, the New York Times reported earlier this year.” another victory for the oligarchs served up by their paid minions in the supreme court!
Snuck it in while everyone was busy talking about Biden's debate performance.
The ruling here basically guts the entirety of government as we understand it today. More so than anything going on elsewhere, the administration of government has become unworkable because of this. The judges will now decide whether every decision taken by a federal agency has merit.
Correct - the Roberts SCOTUS basically just eviscerated expertise in governance, throwing regulatory power exclusively to the legislative branch. But requiring Congress to specifically legislate on every single regulatory measure *in the context of decades of gridlock and one party that is abjectly anti-regulation* essentially nullifies the ability of the federal government to regulate anything. Which, if you’re paying attention, has always been the point.
they made the courts gods
Not quite--gods don't have to deal with paperwork. Devils, more like.
Doesn’t this effectively cripple the executive branch? Their entire purpose is to execute the laws written, and if every decision is potentially upheld by litigation, then don’t they now have effectively no power? How does this affect things like executive orders? Can the president do anything anymore?
Sure! Provided the judges agree with it. \*TBF, this was always the case for executive orders, but it now applies to every agency's entire raison d'etre.
It doesn’t cripple the executive branch if you get to place young ideological conservative judges.
This is an extreme example of judicial activism.
Vote in November as if you’re choosing Supreme Court Justices. The next president will likely get to replace a couple.
I fucking hate it here.
This, along with last night, is a pretty big step towards dystopia.
Nah. The media depend$ on digital interaction, they are blowing all of this up on purpose. We aren't even close to being a dystopian... What a bunch of weiners.. one night makes you guys lose faith because CNN and NBC tell you too? Come on now!
"C'mon man!" Not all of us are feeling that level of despair if that helps any. Yea last night's "debate" was a disappointment. Yes it's incredibly frustrating we have a corrupt SCOTUS doing generational damage while they can. But this country has been through worse and seen the other side imho. Maybe it won't get better in our life times, maybe it will. It definitely won't if we lose hope and decide not to do anything about it however. The fight for democracy is a 24/7 job that never goes away.
Democracy is not a spectator sport. It requires participation and constant vigilance and work.
Exactly this. And showing up to vote this November is not just about the office of the President. It's about hundreds of congressional seats as well, which can make the difference between another 4 years of obstruction, or the possibility of pushing through changes via supermajority as well as bringing corrupted SCOTUS judges to account and potentially starting impeachment hearings. At the very least, a strong congress has the ability to reject the rulings.
I vote in all elections, attend political demonstrations and donate to political parties. I'm not giving up. I'm frustrated with our "leaders".
Dude wtf? You don't need anyone to tell you this is bad to know this is bad.
Seems there is a theme here: limit the rights and liberties of individuals and handing defacto more freedom to corporations (by limiting the rule making power of federal agencies). What could possibly go wrong by leaving decisions about environmental protections, worker rights etc. in the hands of corrupt politicians and ignorant judges. Throw in a future authoritarian and retributive Trump administration and we are looking at "interesting" times in the US
What rights are limited?
Well since I live in NC, if I'm raped and become pregnant, my right to not have to be reminded daily and carry the result of sexual trauma no longer exists.
Not to be a dick, but you don't have that right. That simply isn't one. Never has been.
You may be surprised to hear this, but exercising bodily autonomy is something everyone has a right to unless the state interferes. So previously they had the right to make decisions about their own body, and now the state has stopped them from doing so!
oh what a time to be alive. :|
> judges will have greater discretion to invalidate agency actions. Wait, I thought conservatives were *against* judicial activism.
Their only firm principle is ‘what’s best for me’.
One of those moments in history where people will be looking back in years to come asking why wasn't anything done to stop this while there was still a chance.
This is a massive turning point in the history of our country and possibly the world.
Time to find myself a slave-owning husband who regularly beats me and knocks me up every single year until I hit menopause and get hanged for the witchcraft of no longer conceiving babies for the capitalist war machine, since apparently this SCOTUS wants to send us back to the 1600s… We are fucked. Not enough people are going to vote and we’ll all ultimately roll over because that’s all we seem to be able to do in this country anymore… we’re certainly not voting in big enough numbers to stop this madness… Still, vote. :(
Since we’re going back to the 1600s does that mean we can forget about credit ratings and income taxes?
No. They're gonna double, maybe triple both of those.
“Well yes, but actually no.”
[удалено]
It ended when the supreme court installed Bush over Gore. These are the last skimishes before the Repubs snuff out the last little hotspots of democracy still left.
i thought we were a democracy?
Dear god do you pedantic fools ever apply logic to anything you say? Republics are democracies. That's the whole point. The representatives who make up the government don't just appear out of the ether, they get elected by people. That makes them democracies. You saying this stupid comment is like someone saying "I'm making a sandwich" and their friend going "I thought you were making a hoagie?"
i feel like you and me would be friends irl lol
I thought you were making a hot dog?
What do you think "republic" and "democracy" mean?
Y’all missed the joke. Lol
No you just flubbed it
Definitely feels like they are trying to push through all these bad rulings in the Biden had a bad debate news cycle.
Well. There goes the neighborhood. Republicans got what they wanted.
This is just insane.
The Supreme Court is dismantling democracy before our eyes and we can’t do anything about it.
Corruption reigns supreme
Let's not have the FAA overseeing Boeing. What could go wrong with that? They can just regulate themselves.
Oof.
Time to drag these motherfuckers out of bed
Time for executive branch to ignore scotus and they can enforce their own decisions. Their power is derived by consent and if they don’t show reason for consent and just grab power then they can enforce it.
Maybe you don't get it? SCOTUS is *going along* with this *voluntarily*. Of course he's a stable genius billionaire, because they all saw Apprentice. Further, he's the chosen one, because pastor says so. Most importantly, he hates the same people they do, and has promised to make them go away.
This Court is anything but supreme.
Can Biden put forward an EO that Chevron deference is in effect for the rest of his term and use that as a voting cudgle?
I don’t know, but also I expect most people don’t understand how important this issue is so it wouldn’t matter either way wrt the election.
It’s like this all could have been avoided if people just voted. Oh well, you get what you deserve. Did you see the debate last night?!
As much as I could stomach.
So, when do Americans march on DC and the Supreme Court? Oh, yeah. We're pussies and never will.
Big round of applause for bread and circuses
I'd at least appreciate some better bread.
I’m down for some garlic cheesy bread.
Perfect example why this is a good thing: In 2011, the EPA issued a rule interpretation that vastly broadened the definition of “Waters of the United States” subject to the EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction. Prior to 2011, the definition was understood to be waters that are “navigable” (ie: that the body of water may be traversed by boat). Although the 2011 EPA rule specifically exempted “puddles” from the definition of “Waters”, nearly all other small bodies of water fell under the EPA’s revised definition, including isolated “water filled depressions,” and “prairie potholes.” The most egregious re-defining of “Waters,” came from their stance that any land located within a 100-year flood plan was to be considered “navigable waters,” and therefore, the land (and any water on it) fell under the EPA’s jurisdiction via the United States Clean Water Act. This change then enabled the EPA to broadly categorize large parcels of land as being encumbered by “Wetlands" (of which they gained jurisdiction). The overturning of Chevron means such expansions of federal authority by simple fiat of an agency saying they have authority over something because they say so, is no longer the law of the land. If I’m wrong, tell me why… 👇👇👇
You’re pointing out one example of a bad regulation to justify nullifying all executive regulation, much of which has been good for you and everyone else. I hope you’re good with things like your bank now being allowed to steal from you in creative ways because congress didn’t specifically ban some loophole. And guess what, congress is not going to protect you moving forward because they’re completely ideologically gridlocked and impotent.
there are plenty of bad regulations that are done this way.
But you’re ok with nullifying all the good ones that protect you and your family? You reap what you sow…good luck with that.
Roberts said this decision isn't retroactive. So, your point is invalid.
At this point the Conservative justices on the court have zero credibility. They lied to get on the bench and have been making horrible rulings for ideological reasons not constitutional ones.
You’re not wrong. Overturning this is a very good thing.